If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.

Ah, thanks.

Although, again, this isn't anything solid. What I get from that is that Indiana wanted a deal, when they couldn't get it they decided it was worth dealing with once they knew what it was going to take to get Roy. $7.5M to $8M isn't a big deal to these guys, I guess. (I'll take that extra little $500,000/year, if they want.)

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Blatche needed to get out of Washington... PERIOD! The culture there was detrimental to him. I've wanted Blatche, since he was a RFA. Unfortunately, the Pacers still had David Harrison, so there was no reason to get Blatche. We all know how that turned out! Some cities/teams aren't good for players. Good example was Portland for Z-Bo. You could make a case for Tinsley and Indy/Pacers as well. I wince everytime I see the Tinjury ast # in the daily box scores.

I've heard all the stories about Blatche same as I heard all the stories about Z-Bo. Different teams can change a player. Not to mention Blatche is on a ONE YEAR contract like Augustin. I'll bet the ole family farm that Blatche produces more on his one year contract than Augustin does. Any takers? I thought not!

Blatche is an ABSOLUTE STEAL at $854,389. He can play both the 4 & 5, and produce. He's not up in age like both JO and Rasheed who are producing on $854,389 contracts.

And I absolutely agree with this.

Yes, Blatche needed to get out of Washington. Yes, he need a change of culture. All of this is true.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

In Hill's situation, there was no worry about a poison pill contract. Other teams would not have been allowed to give him such a contract. It violates cap rules. The contract wouldn't have to be flat like the Pacers gave him, but there are strict rules on how much the contract can be raised or lowered from year 1. What happened in the Lin/Asik situation could not have happened to the Pacers and Hill.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I love the idea that has arisen on PD that Donnie Walsh is the only GM in the history of the NBA who has ever overspent on a player. Just too funny. Let's look at the teams just in our own division who have overspent:

Bulls: Boozer, and now Taj Gibson.

Bucks: How about 5 year/32 million on Drew freaking Gooden in 2010? They decided to take on Beno Udrih's crazy contract too.

Pistons: Charlie Villanueva. Ben Gordon. Enough said.

Cavaliers: Remember when they paid Larry Hughes all the money in the world after they lost out on Michael Redd? Right now though, their contracts are pretty good. Only team in our division that hasn't gone crazy, but that is mostly because of what happened with the decision.

The lesson here? Every team makes bad contracts. Every GM has made a bad deal at some point. MOST GMS in the NBA have a history of overspending. Welcome to the league we live in and have fostered.

And our "bad" contract is George Hill..

Personally, I love George Hill the player. I don't love George Hill the point guard. But I'd honestly rather have him play the point than not have him.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.

We may be talking apples and oranges here. If the $6M and $7.5M were only the starting salaries, the contracts would be worth $34.5M and $43.25M over the 5 years.

A contract with a starting salary of $6M and 7.5% raises [$450K] would be $6M, $6.45M, $6.9M, $7.35M and $7.8M for a total of $34.5M over the full five years.

A contract with a starting salary of $7.5M and 7.5% raises [$562.5K] would be $7.5M, $8.0625, $8.625, $9.1875 and $9.75. For a total of $43.25M over 5 years.

Looking at those numbers, it seems likely the Pacers and George Hill compromised at $40M/5yrs instead of the $34.5 the Pacers offered and the $43 that Hill wanted. FWIW, the $40M/5yrs comes out to a starting salary of just under $7M with normal raises. Converting to a straight salary just made the contract easier to fit into the salary scale in the end years when the Pacers are trying to fit Paul, Danny and David into the salary cap while paying Roy's salary.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?

Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.

Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.

There is a difference between being overpaid and bad. Most people knew Hibbert was going to be overpaid with this new contract, it was just a matter of was it better to overpay and have him, or not overpay and not have him. Since Hibbert is a rare commodity it was better to overpay.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I'm confident that Blatche would be producing at the same rate that he's producing now or even better as a Pacer as he'd be getting more minutes of playing time.

He also would be playing for a possible starters spot if the Pacers shouldn't re-sign DWest. That and playing for a new contract should make him produce more as a Pacer than as a Net.

Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it Blatche is a steal this year at 79% less than Mahinmi!

I agree that he is a steal at this price.

I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Much like DC before him, George Hill is the Pacers starting PG so he's going to receive hate no matter WHAT he does.
And this is coming from a DC hater...

Hate/hater is so over used. If someone disagrees with others, they are a hater. Easy label to slap on someone who disagrees. It's part of todays culture to label others a hater when they don't agree with your view or opinion.

I have NEVER missed voting in an election, since I was old enough to vote. Some don't or won't take the time to vote, but b/c I do "does it mean that those I vote against I hate? No, it just means I feel someone else is better qualified for whatever reason or reasons.

My feeling that Hill was overpaid by Walsh doesn't mean I hate or dislike George Hill the BB player. It means I feel Walsh dropped the ball and overpaid Hill when it wasn't necessary. It means I don't feel Hill is a "8 MILLION DOLLAR MAN". It doesn't mean I feel Hill isn't worthy of being a Pacer, but that I feel Hill got overpaid. NO ONE hopes George Hill produces to make that 8 mil contract one that isn't an overpaid contract more than I DO!

Again, hate/hater is nothing more than a label to put on someone that doesn't agree with your views/opinions. It seems some try to use those words to make others shy away from expressing their opinions. If it's not a popular opinion, then it has to be hate or expressed by a hater. In the 50's, when others expressed different opinions the label of Pinkie or Communist was applied to make them fall in line with the popular thinking people.

Bottom line is that those that express their opinions no matter how vehemently IS NOT HATE NOR ARE THEY HATERS!

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.

$854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Whether Hill is anybody's "dream PG" or not isn't the point. If he were the PG that some of you are pining for, he would be making MUCH more than $8M/ year anyway, and something else would have to give to make it all fit together.

Regardless of which G positiweon Hill is playing, he's worth that contract. He's just a player that needs to be on the court. I'm open to the idea that without Granger, we have the worst (or at the very best, we have the least consistent) wings in the league. So if we could get a better point guard and move Hill to SG then we might indeed be a better team... especially when Danny returns.

Absent Hill and West, this is back to a 32-win team (with or without Granger). Those are the two guys that are absolutely earning their contracts this season and that the Pacers can't afford to go forward without.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.

You are talking like we know what happened behind closed doors. When in reality we have no idea. All we know is the end result.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

No, that's not it. I've disagreed with several people in these forums (just like everyone else) but I have never ever been called a hater. Because I'm not.

The people who are called hater are called like this because they never give credit where it's due. For example, let's say that player X has a good game. Then the person Y says that "he still sucks" instead of a "good job, tonight". That's what hating a player means. It's not a matter of disagreeing with others. It's a matter of not giving credit where its due.

DC had a lot of haters last year. People used him as a scapegoat for all our troubles. Our offense sucked and people thought that he was the reason why. This was the popular opinion back then, by the way. DC is not here anymore and our offense still sucks. We still have the same problems. So, DC wasn't the problem. Why did people thought that he was? Because several people hated him. Not all people who adopted that opinion hated DC but the ones who started this opinion certainly did. It was the popular opinion but it was still a hater's one.

I remember a certain poster in a post-game thread after a game in which DC was crucial for us getting the win saying the following:

"Good win by the Pacers, DC still sucks."

Let me post 3 other hater opinions (non-Pacers related):

1) "LeBron James does not play well in big games". Again, not all people who adopted that opinion were / are haters but the ones who started it were / are haters. It's not a factual opinion. It's just something that builds up a narrative and stirs drama (something that the media love, by the way).

2) "Blake Griffin can only dunk". Again, not a factual opinion. It is mostly used as a shot towards Blake and it was started by people who hated him as a player.

3) "Monta Ellis is a ballhog that never passes the ball". The same thing as the above. It was an opinion disproved by statistics but people still held on it. Once again, not all people who adopted this opinion were haters but the ones who started it were. Personally, I used to support this opinion but after watching the games a bit more closely and checking the statistics a bit more I stopped supporting it as it became obvious that it was non-factual opinion. I'm not sure if I hated Monta per se back then but one thing is sure. I didn't give credit where it was due. And it was wrong on my part.

It's quite natural for people to like or dislike players. It's part of human nature and you cannot do anything about it. But you have to give credit where it's due. That's all there is to it in order to not be labeled a hater.

By the way, I don't consider you a Hill hater. It's apparent that your problem is not with Hill as a player. It's with Hill's contract. And you have every reason to hate a contract. As long as you give Hill credit when he plays well (as far as I remember, you do) there's no reason for anyone to consider you a hater.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

$854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.

I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Whether or not we COULD have got a better deal at this point is irrelevant. We DID sign him for 8 million a year. He fits our team, and if you're watching him this year he seems to turning into a better point guard by the week.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

If this was last season I would say Hill wasn't worth 8, but the way he has been playing he is well worth the 8. What makes it even better is Hill could easily be playing better than he has.

Yes, and if Walsh had gotten Hill for 6 mil everyone would have said Walsh was Exec of the Year too. Hill wouldn't even have to have a great season to be worth 6 mil, but at 8 mil he has to have a super season to be worth it. "The true fact is that salary paid makes how good the player's play has to be in order to justify the contract."